A long awaited Bush Administration executive order on national
security classification and declassification policy may be completed
"by the end of the year." But contrary to the fears of some and the
hopes of others, the Bush order will not fundamentally reject the
substantial reforms of cold war secrecy policy that were adopted in
President Clinton's 1995 executive order 12958, which yielded an
avalanche of declassified historical documents.

The pending draft order was briefly described in the minutes of a
September 23 meeting of the State Department Historical Advisory
Committee that were approved for release on December 2.

The forthcoming Bush order will be a "revision rather than a rewrite"
that will preserve the basic structure of executive order 12958,
according to remarks attributed to William Leary of the National
Security Council staff. In particular, the new order will retain
"the 25 year rule" which dictates that most classified documents are
to be declassified as they become 25 years old.

However, historian Robert Schulzinger, chair of the State Department
Advisory Committee, warned that "The high point in declassification
has passed, and a revised executive order will be less transparent."

The newly released minutes also provide a status report on publication
of the State Department's official "Foreign Relations of the United
States" (FRUS) series; the ongoing re-review of declassified
documents at the National Archives that was mandated under the 1999
Kyl/Lott amendment to search for inadvertent disclosures of
classified information; and other details of historical document
declassification. The minutes confirm that one classified document
was actually published in a FRUS volume "many years ago," to the
dismay of Energy Department reviewers.

A copy of the newly released Historical Advisory Committee minutes is
posted here:

Efforts to defend and expand executive branch secrecy prerogatives are
a recurring feature of the Bush Administration's interactions with
the other branches of government.

The Administration's assertive posture is particularly evident in
Presidential signing statements on new legislation, which routinely
include rebuffs of even the most innocuous congressional mandates on
disclosure of information to the public or the Congress.

Nearly every Presidential statement on legislation involving national
security, defense, or foreign policy now seems to include a
disclaimer, warning that the Administration will implement a new law
only as it sees fit.

The latest of many examples is President Bush's statement on the
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003, which he signed on
December 2.

"A number of provisions of the Act establish new requirements for the
executive branch to furnish sensitive information to the Congress on
various subjects, including sections 221, 1043, 1065, [and several
others]," President Bush's signing statement observed.

However, the President advised, "The executive branch shall construe
such provisions in a manner consistent with the President's
constitutional authority to withhold information the disclosure of
which could impair foreign relations, the national security, the
deliberative processes of the Executive, or the performance of the
Executive's constitutional duties." See:

This does not necessarily entail any violation of law, but it does
signify a continuing consolidation of executive branch authority at
the likely expense of congressional oversight, as well as public
accountability.

A GLIMPSE AT INTELLIGENCE LIAISON

Liaison relationships between U.S. intelligence agencies and their
counterparts in other countries are typically among the most
important and the most secretive of intelligence activities.
Questioned about them in public, the CIA can hardly be bothered to
respond even with a "no comment."

But occasionally the foreign counterpart agency has reasons of its own
to shed light on its intelligence liaison with the United States,
such as a desire to advertise, for foreign or domestic advantage, the
close relationship the country purportedly enjoys with U.S.
intelligence.

Something like that may explain an unusually chatty account of
relations between CIA and Lebanese security officials that appeared
in the Beirut newspaper An-Nahar last week.

The newspaper reported the questions posed by Director of Central
Intelligence George Tenet and his staff concerning possible al Qaeda
infiltration into Lebanon, and the responses given by Lebanese
officials.

"As a result of the discussions, Tenet and his aides expressed
satisfaction with stability in Lebanon and with the cooperation of
the Lebanese security services with the CIA station in the American
Embassy in Beirut. This is a constant and accurate cooperation in the
fight against terrorism. The Lebanese authorities deal seriously with
the information they receive from the CIA station, and they regularly
supply the station with information within the anti-terror plan."

See "Tenet Given Assurances that No al-Qa'ida Cells Infiltrated
Lebanon," by Nicholas Nasif, published in An-Nahar, November 28
(translated by the Foreign Broadcast Information Service) here:

In an act of unusual bureaucratic sophistication, the Czech Republic's
Chamber of Deputies has established a new parliamentary Commission to
monitor declassification of former communist secret police files, and
to receive appeals from members of the public whose requests that
have been denied.

"Citizens who would be denied access to [secret police] files by state
bodies will be able to turn to the commission which will rule whether
the files will not be made available or whether a citizen will be
able to see them in spite of state bodies' negative stand," according
to a report from the CTK news agency.

See "Chamber sets up commission to watch StB files declassification,"
November 27:

It is probably not entirely coincidental that popular confidence in
the Chamber of Deputies has increased significantly in recent months,
with 59% of the respondents reporting that they trust the
institution. This is the highest figure reported in eight years,
according to another CTK story.

INTELLIGENCE OVERSIGHT EXPLORED IN GUATEMALA, ARGENTINA

The most basic questions of national security policy are also matters
of urgent practical concern in developing democracies in Latin
America and elsewhere.

Guatemala's national security organization, policy and doctrine are
examined, from first principles to current realities, in an
interesting new book of essays entitled "Seguridad democratica en
Guatemala: desafios de la transformacion" edited by Bernardo Arevalo
de Leon, Patricia Gonzalez, and Manolo Vela. The book is published
by the Facultad Latinoamericana de Ciencias Sociales (FLACSO) / Sede
Guatemala (2002). For price and ordering information, send email to:

A comparative analysis of intelligence oversight in Europe and South
America is offered in "Control Publico de la Actividad de
Inteligencia: Europa y America Latina, una vision comparativa" by
Jose Manuel Ugarte. A copy of the paper, which was presented at a
conference in Buenos Aires last month, is available here:

An impressive collection of freedom of information laws from around
the world has been compiled by Prof. Alasdair Roberts of Syracuse
University. His online library also includes documents reflecting
the impact of NATO directives on the information policies of new NATO
member nations, as well as several hard-to-find "security of
information agreements" that govern the exchange of classified
information between countries. See:

William M. Arkin provides some new substance to Defense Secretary
Rumsfeld's offhand remark November 18 that the Defense Department
continues to exercise the intended functions of the aborted Office of
Strategic Influence (SN, 11/27/02).

In fact, Arkin writes, the Pentagon's information policy "blurs or even
erases the boundaries between factual information and news, on the one
hand, and public relations, propaganda and psychological warfare, on
the other. And, while the policy ostensibly targets foreign enemies,
its most likely victim will be the American electorate."

See "The Military's New War of Words," by William M. Arkin, Los
Angeles Times, November 24 (flagged by cryptome.org), here:

"The Bush administration is developing a parallel legal system in
which terrorism suspects -- U.S. citizens and noncitizens alike --
may be investigated, jailed, interrogated, tried and punished without
legal protections guaranteed by the ordinary system, lawyers inside
and outside the government say," according to the Washington Post.

The Justice Department's churlish interpretation of the requirements
of the Freedom of Information Act is critiqued in "At Justice,
Freedom Not to Release Information," by James V. Grimaldi, Washington
Post, December 2:

"A Republican Senator [Pat Roberts of Kansas] who has been highly
critical of the Congressional inquiry into the Sept. 11 attacks is in
line to lead the Senate Intelligence Committee" in the next Congress,
according to the New York Times. Expectations for vigorous oversight
are correspondingly low.

See "Shuffling at the Top is Set for Intelligence Committees" by Carl
Hulse, New York Times, December 2: